Rudy Giuliani Former New York City mayor Last Ranking: 1 Stars are aligning. It's not his nomination to lose, but there's a clear path to win for him. The latest NBC/WSJ poll shows that three out of four GOP voters care more about issues Giuliani can prove he's conservative on (terrorism, taxes and education/health care) than issues he struggles with re: conservatism (moral values and immigration).

Mitt Romney Former Massachusetts governor Last Ranking: 3 After languishing a bit for the last month, it seems Romney's camp has a plan for how to tackle Rudy: Ignore Thompson and try to make this a two-person race again.

Fred Thompson Former Tennessee senator Last Ranking: 2 If anyone is in need of a re-launch, it's Thompson.

John McCain Arizona senator Last Ranking: 5 His base (the media) seems desperate to deal him back in, but what's going to happen to McCain if he loses in Iowa to Paul and Huckabee?

“three out of four GOP voters care more about issues Giuliani can prove he’s conservative on (terrorism, taxes and education/health care) than issues he struggles with”

I agree. I like Rudy’s 12 Commitments. I remain concerned about how he will handle immigration, but I believe he will do better than Bush.

The Twelve Commitments:

I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. I will impose accountability on Washington. I will lead America towards energy independence. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

“three out of four GOP voters care more about issues Giuliani can prove he’s conservative on (terrorism, taxes and education/health care) than issues he struggles with”

I agree. I like Rudy’s 12 Commitments. I remain concerned about how he will handle immigration, but I believe he will do better than Bush.

The Twelve Commitments:

I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. I will impose accountability on Washington. I will lead America towards energy independence. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

The latest NBC/WSJ poll shows that three out of four GOP voters care more about issues Giuliani can prove he's conservative on (terrorism, taxes and education/health care) than issues he struggles with re: conservatism (moral values and immigration).

In other words, Giuliani will lose 25% of GOP voters. That means he cannot win.

I am one of those voters, and I will NEVER vote for him.

"If you will just agree to the murdering of your children, then we can win the presidency."

8
posted on 10/10/2007 6:27:08 AM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

You have correctly identified the problem. I mentioned this to my husband last night when discussing Thompson (who he had thought he'd really like to get on board for--until he was faced with the many facts as to why Thompson is not particularly conservative.)

I believe that many people, like my husband so dearly wish for a true conservative, they are willing to lay that mantra on Thompson, until shown the facts of his weak conservative positions.

There are far more conservative candidates and even ones who are telegenic and engaging but our media, FNC included, won't sign on to them, at least not willingly.

Hopefully it will be the actual voters who show the truth to fiction spouted by the media elites.

Hunter certainly looked good last night, and that's coming from someone who thought Hunter has been flat and repetitive in all the previous debates. I loved the last line of his "fleeting target" answer, where he said it was (paraphrasing) "a responsibility the President will have to take on his shoulders."

Whether that translates into support is still unclear, but I'm at least willing to wait and see if a bump materializes before writing him off. Not terribly likely, but I think he gave more Republicans reason to vote for him last night than Paul or Huckabee did.

Yes, "National Journal", it does seem silly to say Fred needs a "re-launch" after only a month. I think this guy, and the media in general, are in Fred denial. They haven't been impressed with Fred's performance, so they believe the voters haven't been either. The polls and the money suggests otherwise, however. See where he is in another month before you say he needs a relaunch. That is, unless you like eating crow.

One kernel of truth here, "[D]on't write off Paul's supporters as simply angry anti-U.N. black helicopter types. There's been anger from the GOP's less-government libertarian wing for some time, and Paul may be becoming the protest vehicle for those folks." I think there still are Paul supporters that are mainly protesting against the nanny-state, big-spending party the GOP has become, but are still uncomfortable with his kookier views, particularly on foreign policy. I actually think he was a loser last night because, if anything, he made it less comfortable for these supporters to stay on board by his goldbuggery, complaints about the "wealth gap", and his constant mentioning of the war.

The article goes on to say, "It'll be interesting to see which of the front-runners actually 'gets it' and tries to co-opt some of Paul's supporters." I think a candidate who comes out with a hard-line small-government but pro-defense message can benefit from a defection by the less committed (or committable) Paul supporters. Fred can certainly be this candidate if he can clearly and forcefully articulate that his "first principles" would, in a Thompson Administration, include a strong push for a drastic reduction in the size, scope, intrusiveness, and expense of the federal government.

Indeed, Fred's ability to put forth a clear-cut, common sense message that connects with voters from across the conservative movement will likely be the test of his campaign.

Thompson/Hunter or vice versa, works for me for now. I’ll never vote for: The Beast, Obama, McCain, Romney or Guilliani, no matter how amusing it would be to hear Sean Hannity say President “Gee-oo-li-annie” every day for four years. *SNORT*

34
posted on 10/10/2007 6:58:19 AM PDT
by Diana in Wisconsin
(Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)

"Hunter is at the bottom at least in part because the media wants him there."

So true! So sad. He IS the Conservative that says it like it is...the true "cowboy" John Wayne kinda GUY...strong and able to protect the American people.

The media certainly wouldn't want a guy to really be a guy. You wouldn't want a politician who really doesn't negotiate with terrorists (even if they're in his own Country). You wouldn't want a leader who would tell the UN to shove it if it were a matter of us or them. You wouldn't want a MAN as the Commander in Chief.

I'm sorry, but to me there there is just a certain air of unreality to a Giuliani candidacy.

To take just one example, I have a hard time imagining the actual mechanics of a Giuliani nomination.

Would the existing party's leaders alter it's planks on issues like abortion and stem-cell research, or would a convention dominated by Giuliani supporters rewrite the party platform on such issues, or would he take the stage to accept the nomination promising to campaign against the party platform or to to promise somehow split the difference ("I support the right to choose, but I promise to appoint Justices who support the right to life")?

Would there be a Republican party, as we understand it, left standing afterwards?

It's just very, very hard for me to comprehend how this would work.

44
posted on 10/10/2007 7:11:38 AM PDT
by M. Dodge Thomas
(Opinion based on research by an eyewear firm, which surveyed 100 members of a speed dating club.)

It's true. He literally repeated the same information about China three times in the debate yesterday, nearly verbatim. Not only that, but he told the same store about only being able to find a single American contractor for a defense item that he told in another one of the debates. He also looked stiff and irrelevant, though not as irrelevant as Tancredo or Brownback. All three of them should drop out of the race immediately. They have all failed to gain any traction.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.